Exacerbations, Health Resource Utilization, and Costs Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treated with Nebulized Arformoterol Following a Respiratory Event.

M. Navaie, B. Celli, Zhun Xu, Soojin Cho-Reyes, C. Dembek, T. Gilmer
{"title":"Exacerbations, Health Resource Utilization, and Costs Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treated with Nebulized Arformoterol Following a Respiratory Event.","authors":"M. Navaie, B. Celli, Zhun Xu, Soojin Cho-Reyes, C. Dembek, T. Gilmer","doi":"10.15326/jcopdf.6.4.2019.0127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nLong-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs), with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), delivered by handheld inhalers or nebulizers are recommended as maintenance therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated exacerbations, health resource utilization (HRU), and costs among Medicare beneficiaries with COPD on handheld ICS+LABA who switched to nebulized arformoterol (ARF) or continued ICS+LABA following a respiratory event.\n\n\nMethods\nUsing Medicare claims, we identified beneficiaries with COPD (international classification of disease, 9th revision, clinical modification [ICD-9-CM] 490-492.xx, 494.xx, 496.xx) between 2010-2014 who had ≥ 1 year of continuous enrollment in Parts A, B, and D; ≥ 2 COPD-related outpatient visits ≥ 30 days apart or ≥ 1 hospitalization(s); ICS+LABA use 90-days before ARF initiation; and a respiratory event (COPD-related hospitalization or emergency department [ED] visit < 30 days before ARF initiation). Using propensity scores, 423 beneficiaries who switched to ARF were matched to 423 beneficiaries who continued on handheld ICS+LABA (controls). Difference-in-difference regression models examined outcomes at 180-days follow-up.\n\n\nResults\nBeneficiaries who switched to ARF had 1.5 fewer exacerbations (p=0.015) but no difference in hospitalizations and ED visits compared to controls. Durable medical equipment (DME) costs were higher among ARF users than controls ($1590), yet total health care costs were similar due to cost offsets by ARF in pharmacy (-$794), inpatient (-$524), and outpatient care (-$65). ARF accounted for 55% ($886.63) of DME costs, with the remaining costs attributed to oxygen therapy ($428.10) and nebulized corticosteroids ($590.85).\n\n\nConclusions\nSwitching from handheld ICS+LABA to nebulized ARF resulted in fewer COPD exacerbations among Medicare beneficiaries. Nebulized LABAs may improve outcomes in selected patients with COPD.","PeriodicalId":10249,"journal":{"name":"Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.6.4.2019.0127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs), with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), delivered by handheld inhalers or nebulizers are recommended as maintenance therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated exacerbations, health resource utilization (HRU), and costs among Medicare beneficiaries with COPD on handheld ICS+LABA who switched to nebulized arformoterol (ARF) or continued ICS+LABA following a respiratory event. Methods Using Medicare claims, we identified beneficiaries with COPD (international classification of disease, 9th revision, clinical modification [ICD-9-CM] 490-492.xx, 494.xx, 496.xx) between 2010-2014 who had ≥ 1 year of continuous enrollment in Parts A, B, and D; ≥ 2 COPD-related outpatient visits ≥ 30 days apart or ≥ 1 hospitalization(s); ICS+LABA use 90-days before ARF initiation; and a respiratory event (COPD-related hospitalization or emergency department [ED] visit < 30 days before ARF initiation). Using propensity scores, 423 beneficiaries who switched to ARF were matched to 423 beneficiaries who continued on handheld ICS+LABA (controls). Difference-in-difference regression models examined outcomes at 180-days follow-up. Results Beneficiaries who switched to ARF had 1.5 fewer exacerbations (p=0.015) but no difference in hospitalizations and ED visits compared to controls. Durable medical equipment (DME) costs were higher among ARF users than controls ($1590), yet total health care costs were similar due to cost offsets by ARF in pharmacy (-$794), inpatient (-$524), and outpatient care (-$65). ARF accounted for 55% ($886.63) of DME costs, with the remaining costs attributed to oxygen therapy ($428.10) and nebulized corticosteroids ($590.85). Conclusions Switching from handheld ICS+LABA to nebulized ARF resulted in fewer COPD exacerbations among Medicare beneficiaries. Nebulized LABAs may improve outcomes in selected patients with COPD.
慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者呼吸事件后雾化阿福莫特罗治疗的加重、健康资源利用和成本
长期作用β 2激动剂(LABAs),联合或不联合吸入皮质类固醇(ICSs),通过手持吸入器或雾化器给予,被推荐作为慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)的维持治疗。本研究评估了在呼吸事件发生后,使用手持式ICS+LABA的COPD医疗保险受益人转而使用雾化阿福特罗(ARF)或继续使用ICS+LABA的加重、健康资源利用率(HRU)和成本。方法使用医疗保险索赔,我们确定患有COPD的受益人(国际疾病分类,第9版,临床修改[ICD-9-CM] 490-492)。xx, 494年。xx, 496.xx),在A、B、D部分连续入组≥1年;copd相关门诊≥2次,间隔≥30天或≥1次住院;在ARF启动前90天使用ICS+LABA;和呼吸事件(copd相关住院或急诊就诊< ARF启动前30天)。使用倾向评分,423名转换为ARF的受益人与423名继续使用手持式ICS+LABA(对照组)的受益人相匹配。差异回归模型检查了180天随访的结果。结果:与对照组相比,改用ARF的受益人的急性发作减少了1.5次(p=0.015),但住院和急诊次数没有差异。耐用医疗设备(测距装置)在论坛用户成本高于控制(1590美元),然而,医疗费用同样是由于总成本补偿的ARF药房(- 794美元),住院(- 524美元),和门诊护理(- 65美元)。ARF占DME费用的55%(886.63美元),其余费用归因于氧疗(428.10美元)和雾化皮质类固醇(590.85美元)。结论从手持式ICS+LABA转换为雾化ARF可减少Medicare受益人的COPD加重。雾化LABAs可能改善COPD患者的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信